Project closure termination upheld as non-punitive; employees had no right to reinstatement or absorption, but terminal dues were protected.

Employees appointed for a specific project could not claim reinstatement or absorption as of right after the project was bona fide closed on an administrative decision and paucity of funds. The termination was held non-stigmatic and non-punitive because the appointment letters allowed notice-based termination without reasons, and the references in the orders did not change the real basis of closure. The challenge to termination therefore failed, as did the claim for absorption in another government department. The Court, however, directed release of admitted terminal dues, including CPF, leave encashment and gratuity, with interest if unpaid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioners on closure of the project was illegal, stigmatic or punitive, and whether they were entitled to reinstatement or absorption in another government department.

Analysis: The petitioners had served in a project that was closed on account of administrative decision and paucity of funds. The appointment letters permitted termination on notice without assigning reasons. The closure was treated as bona fide and genuine, and once the project itself came to an end, the employees engaged only for that project could not claim a vested right to continue, reinstatement, or absorption as of right. The references in the termination orders did not alter the real basis of termination, which was closure of the project and not punitive action after a disciplinary finding. The respondents, however, admitted liability for terminal dues such as CPF, leave encashment and gratuity.

Conclusion: The challenge to the termination and the claim for absorption failed. The writ petition was dismissed, with a direction to release admitted terminal dues with interest if unpaid.

---